From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Poem on "The Birth of Venus"?[edit]

Did Angelo Poliziano write a poem on the theme of "The Birth of Venus" that inspired Botticelli to create his famous lyrical image now at the Uffizi, Florence, Italy? Bob Burgan, aka. email:


I noticed that "Politian" redirects here. That's also the name of an unfinished play by Edgar Allan Poe. Currently, there's a page called Scenes From 'Politian' but I was hoping we could have a disambig page here - though I'm not sure how to do it. Midnightdreary 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Savonarola[edit]

Do we know if his relationship to Savonarola changed shortly before he was (perhap) poisoned? Weinstein says that "he spent the last weeks before his a lay brother of San Marco." (Savonarola and Florence, note 105, p21) Is this evidence enough? If you join Savonarola's convent at this time then surely you are on his side. Walker (The Ancient Theology p42) and Weinstein both count Poliziano as the most surprising of all the Laurentians (i.e the Academy gathered by the now dead Lorenzo) to (abandoning Ficino and) go over to Savonarola. Now, if he did go over to Savonarola at the time of the French invasion, and we now know he was killed by Medici agents, then the conversion of Pico's friend (and lover?) before his murder is of some interest to his story; and also of some interest to the history of the demise of the Florentine Academy generally. There continues to be a reluctance to admit that these fathers of the Renaissance could come under the spell of such an apocalyptic preacher. And now...perhaps we know that two of them paid with their lives for doing so. If we have no more evidence, then I would suggest a note on Poliziano entering the convent (ref Weinstein) might be worth including; and it might be a nice counterpoint to the reference to Meltzoff's book (which I have not read) as an excellent portrayal of Poliziano's "opposition to Savonarola" (which is not in dispute!). The Bernmeister (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was do not move. kotra (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PolizianoPolitian — The title of this page is (quite sensibly) Politian's nickname. Wouldn't it be better to use the English form of that nickname, as we use Raphael and leave Raffaello to be a redirect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

False assertion. Politian is not "the" English form at all, it is "an" English form. Poliziano is used in English - as it is, in fact, in three of the four English-language references for the article. Let's follow English usage and our sources. Oppose. Knepflerle (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Two of those sources are the same BBC article (presumably after link failure. It's true that he's "also known as Poliziano" (to speakers of Italian), but this is not the most common or useful name in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"Two of those sources are the same BBC article" - no, they're not. Check again.
"(to speakers of Italian)" - nothing of the sort. No knowledge of Italian is assumed in the readership of these articles.
"this is not the most common or useful name in English" - merely your unproven assertion, which is contradicted by the small evidence we have.
Your purported "most common" and "useful" "English name" is unmentioned in half the sources and only in passing in a third.
Make that strong oppose. Knepflerle (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Odd, I clicked on both, and got the same article. A cache fault, presumably. Nevertheless, it would be nice to hear a third opinion; this still seems unhelpful, especially to other Wikipedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I hate to say this, but as of now I judge the weight of evidence to be against the move request in this case. Knepflerle has done the homework; a pair of generalist works doesn't trump the large mass of specialized encyclopedias and tertiary sources he's gathered up.Erudy (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Erudy. It hasn't been clearly demonstrated that the proposed name is any more common than the current one. The opposite may or may not be true, but it doesn't really matter since move discussions default to the status quo. Jafeluv (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


We should follow the usage of other works of general reference, and commonly available sources:

  • Britannica Politian; it describes Angelo Poliziano as the Italian name.
  • Encarta Politian
  • and so on.

Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough? Why stop there? More!
  • Columbia Encyclopedia [1] - Angelo Poliziano
  • Concise Oxford guide to the Theatre - Poliziano, Angelo ("sometimes known as Politian")
  • Concise Oxford Guide to English Literature - Poliziano, Angelo
  • Cyclopedia of World Authors - Poliziano ("Angelo Ambrogini, most commonly known as Poliziano (or Politian)")
  • From Poliziano to Machiavelli, [2] Poliziano used throughout, (Politian in one citation)
  • The Court of the Medici [3] - chapter entitled Angelo Poliziano, Poliziano used throughout (Politian in only two citation).
  • OUP's Catullus - Angelo Poliziano or Poliziano used throughout(no uses of Politian).
    • Particularly outrageous; the usage in classics is better represented by Thomson's Catullus, p, 80: From the library of Aulus lanus Parrhasius (Aulo Giano Parrasio, 1470-1522): 'the heir of Valla, Politian and Laetus, who continued their methods' (note that this is Thomson's translation from the Italian.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OUP's Catullus is hardly a fringe leftfield publication. Outrageous is pure hyperbole. Knepflerle (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A peculiar (to say the least) description. The OUP Catullus, in normal usage, is Mynors' edition of the text (which is still in print, and uses Politianus); this is an essay collection.
        • The outrage is not the book (probably perfectly respectable), but the abuse of language and statistics perpetrated in this list. It is not fringy; it is uncustomary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Abuse of language - pardon? I'm not claiming any "statistics" as you keep repeating - I'm showing qualitatively that Poliziano is used in English, and mainstream generalist works may not use Politian at all. "It is uncustomary" - repeated uses by major news agencies, the Columbia encyclopedia, and numerous university presses is hardly "uncustomary". Both Politian and Poliziano have substantial common usage, and the article now reflects this. Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Legacy of Rome - Poliziano and Politian both used
  • Cambridge History of Literary Criticism Poliziano (and in index - "Politian see Poliziano, Angelo")
  • Oxford Illustrated History of the Theatre (Angelo) Poliziano, (no use of Politian).
  • Cambridge History of Italian Literature Poliziano, (no use of Politian)
  • Music and theatre from Poliziano to Monteverdi - Poliziano in title and throughout (not a single mention of Politian).
  • Encyclopedia of the Renaissance - entry under Poliziano, Angelo
  • Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 Poliziano. (No use of Politian).
  • Harvard's edition of Poliziano's Letters - Poliziano throughout, (not a single mention of Politian anywhere(!))

Knepflerle (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent job of cherry-picking. I chose the first works of general reference to come to mind; Knepferle has gone to Google Books and searched for those who agree with him. I could have done this also; as with the usage of Anthony Grafton here; but I have better things to do.
I continue to hope, however, that there will be third parties to settle this; not this dishonest and selective reasoning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The irony of your shouting dishonesty here and claiming I'm editing in bad faith below won't be lost on others reading this page.
Many of the works quoted are generalist in nature, particularly the Columbia encyclopedia and the Oxford and Cambridge histories, and it was well worth pointing out that even more specialist works may completely avoid the use of Politian. It's certainly gives a wider picture than picking two works, especially as they were barely "cherry-picked" - these are hardly exhaustive or obscure. Knepflerle (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Repeatedly changing the article text to match your unfounded suppositions, when it has been clearly demonstrated to you that they are unsupported by the article sources is indeed tendentious editing. You have no evidence that Politian is the "better known" alternative, you have no evidence that it is "the" English name, and there is verifiable evidence that Poliziano is regularly used in English as well as Italian.
The burden of proof lies with you after this edit changed the statement which had been used for the previous three years. Politian should indeed be mentioned in the lead (as it is in my version), but your stronger statement is miserably unsupported..
Thirdly, as regards your edit summary here, please understand the difference between a "rephrase" and an edit which substantially or even completely changes the factual content of a statement. Knepflerle (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no civil response to this misrepresentation. Nevertheless, I have added a tag for Knepferle's complaint, unfounded though I believe it to be.
Better is not an innovation; it (or best) has stood in the article for years, and is plainly correct; Politian is best known as Politian/Politianus/Poliziano. That each of these is adapted to a particular language should be obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Better is not an innovation; it (or best)" - yes, but you changed what came after it. The previous "Better known as Poliziano" is clearly not the same as your "Better known as Politian" just because you reused the word "better" - and it doesn't exempt it from sourcing when challenged. Instead of having the unnecessary unsupported "better" with a tag, it would be better to change it for the undeniable "also".
Furthermore, Poliziano is not just used in Italian, as amply demonstrated above, and does not need marking as if it were. You might as well put "Italian: Angelo Ambrogini" or "Italian:Montepulciano" as include that sort of misleading ornament. English is what is used in English-language publications, and Poliziano is used regularly and without explanation, italics, or assuming any background knowledge of Italian. Knepflerle (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Knepferle is clearly editing in bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Baseless ad hominem, evading addressing any of the points raised. Knepflerle (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Which I have already addressed above. Using a search engine to find only confirming instances is abuse of statistics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Politian is the name used in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. That suggests it's in fairly mainstream use. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I never said otherwise and that is undeniable. But to say Poliziano isn't also mainstream, or is only in Italian usage is also verifiably untrue. When you have both mainstream newspapers [4], [5] and major academic publications [6] [7] happy to discuss this figure with not a single mention of Politian, it's clear that the claim that Politian is "the" (exclusive) or preferred English name is unfounded.
In summary, both names are mainstream, and usage is mixed. Knepflerle (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
But Knepferle is editing to disguise that fact; which is the other reason I charge him with bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly: [8] is an abuse of rollback for a non-vandalistic edit. Secondly, my suggested version does not "disguise" anything - both names are mentioned in bold straight after the first name. Knepflerle (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Since Knepferle demands an explanation for the obvious, it is at least misleading to refer to Politian and Poliziano as two nicknames, any more than to refer to Petrarch and Petrarca (or, for that matter, Vittorio Emanuele and Victor Emmanuel) as two names. Next time, please discuss on talk pages; that's what they're for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
original comment replaced If anybody else cannot find or see my discussion, explanation, sourcing and comments above and in my edit summaries, they are welcome to contact me and I will provide a thorough supplementary discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the most obvious way forward to rename the main article "Angelo Ambrogini" and redirect both "Politian" and "Poliziano" here? But we still have to reach agreement on what he is called within the article. At the moment there is inconsistent use of both. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


On a more constructive note - is the "article's factual accuracy" still disputed? If not, can we get rid of that tag at the very least? Knepflerle (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It has other problems besides being translated ineptly. The essay on homosexuality and the account of Politian's death (a showy and recent discovery, but likely to have chronological problems) should be checked out first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think tags on the specific problem sections would be suffice, but as you wish. Knepflerle (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Why seek to be offensive and call it an "essay" on homosexuality. When in fact it's 80 words in an article of over 800 words? No problems, however, in having it checked out. In fact I think we should add that it was likely that he was also the lover of Pico della MirandolaContaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


The article suggests that Poliziano died shortly after his friend and patron, Lorenzo il Magnifico died. Lorenzo de'Medici died in fact two years before Poliziano's death, on April 9, 1492.

First Humanist?[edit]

If you read the lead, you'll see that is says that: "[Poliziano's] scholarship led to the Renaissance revival of classical Latin, a phenomenon sometimes called "Humanist Latin"." This is complete nonsense, isn't it? Poliziano was clearly part of the Humanist movement, but it had been active for many years before him, and he certainly wasn't the only one among his contemporaries to try to revive Latin. See for example: Lorenzo Valla, Antonio Beccadelli (poet), Petrarch, or just the article on Renaissance Humanism.

Bahnheckl (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed... Bahnheckl (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It is not nonsense. You reverted it claiming I wrote or implied "singlehandedly" when I explicitly did not. You reverted claiming that he "invented Humanism" when nothing like that was ever said. So your protest is rather disingenuous. If you were aware of the battle between Latin scholars in 15th century Florence, you would find that Poliziano was responsible for liberating Latin from the clutches of Classical Latin modes and translators who insisted on didactically drawing it back into a dead idiom. Poliziano practically led the charge that gave Latin (the Humanist Latin) its vital dynamic feel as if it were a vernacular...something that earned him the ire of his more classically-minded contemporaries who he accused of simply "imitating Cicero". He wasn't the only one I will grant, but likely the most prominent among them. Further, the statement that "his scholarship led to" is entirely accurate and substantiated by contemporary and modern analysis of his contributions. I did however emend it to add that his scholarship led to its "revival and evolution" which augments its precision. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
My wording might have been a bit harsh there, for which I apologize, but what I meant was something along these lines:
First of all, the phrasing as it stands could lead readers (such as myself) to understand that Poliziano's scholarship singlehandedly "led to revival and evolution of the Renaissance Latin", which is obviously not the case. (If it is, I would like to see sources for it)
Secondly, I do not quite understand what you mean by "liberating Latin from the clutches of Classical Latin modes..." and a "dynamic feel". What exactly did he add and how did later Humanists follow this trend? You will have to forgive my ignorance on the subject.
In short, I think the problem is not with what you mean, but the way you have worded it. Bahnheckl (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved, I guess. You have left out the word "the" before "revival" and added sources. A simple misunderstanding then... Bahnheckl (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I accept your apology, and know wholeheartedly that Wikipedia is a melting pot of misunderstandings. I am not a regular contributor to this article, even though it is on my watchlist (mostly to remind me to address it and improve it eventually). My only editing on this article was to revise the lede after being disappointed in it after retouring through this neighborhood last night, and am now a little more inspired to undertake a revision in the near future. This area is part of my professional life, having devoted a lot of study to Florentine Republic's decline with the cult of Savonarola--so Poliziano and the circle of scholars around the Medici pose quite prominently in that interest. First...that was clarified in subsequent edits as you acknowledged. Second, I will intend to elaborate on this when I revise the article and discuss his legacy. Third, there is a reason the pen is mightier than the sword...modes of utterance can be insidious. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I study Classics at the Leiden University myself. It's always good to meet people of like interest. By the way, I just changed some things about the references. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Bahnheckl (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

David Quint citation[edit]

Hi everyone. Your dramas have locked me out :).

Can someone add Quint's translation of the Stanze to the bibliography thus:

* {{cite book|last=Quint|first=David L.|title=The Stanze of Angelo Poliziano|year=2005|publisher=[[Penn State University Press]]|isbn=978-0271028712}}

Thanks. (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


The Orfeo written by Politian was not that performed at Mantua to music by Monteverdi. The libretto for that work was provided by Alessandro Striggio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)